Getting Real: Blizzard's Real ID

June 15, 2010 -

Blizzard has announced Real ID, which it calls a "completely voluntary and optional level of identity that will keep players connected across all of Battle.net." The first game to get support for Real ID will be World of Warcraft.

The idea is to give Battle.net users a way to connect with real friends using real names and give them a means to communicate and share independent of the Blizzard game they might be playing at the time. Your Real ID friends will appear under their "real-life names" on your friends list, when chatting, communicating in-game, or viewing a character's profile. Real ID friends can also see who's on each other's Real ID friends list, making it easy for players to connect with other people they might know.

For World of Warcraft players this allows for cross-realm and cross-game chat - for example, when you friend is play StarCraft 2 you can harass him or her while in World of Warcraft.. And when you "friend" someone once you will see all the characters they have created in Blizzard games to date. Apparently this will even include "future games" someone might be playing like betas and beta content.

Finally, Real ID will feature a parental control layer for those parents interested in using. Those that already use parental controls should be getting some details in their inboxes soon, but the short answer is that parents can decide if their children can participate in Real ID .. for obvious reasons.

Real ID is scheduled to launch with World of Warcraft patch 3.3.5; keep an eye on www.worldofwarcraft.com for details or check out the Real ID FAQ.


Comments

Re: Getting Real: Blizzard's Real ID

I'm on their PTR, which is their Public Test Realm. It's a sort of beta test for patches and such.

They keep having to disable the Real ID, because its buggy and causes crashes and disconnects.

Good system there, Blizzard.

Yes, I am a liberal. I also believe in a strong military, less government, and the right to bear arms. 

Re: Getting Real: Blizzard's Real ID

I, personally, think Blizzard should make a instant messenger type thing that allows me to message my friends whilst they in-game, even when I'm not.

"But Randi!", I hear you say, "Things like Steam, Xfire or Raptr can do that already!" Ah, and you're right, but how many want to use those third-party programs? In comparison to the people who actively play Blizzard's games online, not many.

If people already trust Blizzard enough to buy and install their games on their PC, I think they'd trust them enough to install a Battle.net Messenger, and that's my point. Steam, for example, whilst from a trusted vendor, is still third-party, and the Steam Overlay isn't integrated natively with games like Xfire or Raptr is (which detects you're in a game automatically).

The latter two, however, are "worse" only because their vendors may not be as trustworthy (Xfire is run by the MTV Networks, I can't say how trustworthy they are in the grand scheme of things though).

-- Randi Tastix

Re: Getting Real: Blizzard's Real ID

"I, personally, think Blizzard should make a instant messenger type thing that allows me to message my friends whilst they in-game, even when I'm not."

They've said they want to make something like this to interface with battle.net 2.0 and talk to Real ID friends, but they don't have any specific plans yet.
---
I'm not under the affluence of incohol as some thinkle peep I am. I'm not half as thunk as you might drink. I fool so feelish I don't know who is me, and the drunker I stand here, the longer I get.


---
I'm not under the affluence of incohol as some thinkle peep I am. I'm not half as thunk as you might drink. I fool so feelish I don't know who is me, and the drunker I stand here, the longer I get.

Re: Getting Real: Blizzard's Real ID

I'd be more for this if it didn't force you to use a real name. I mean, it'd be nice if when playign Starcraft 2 friends could get ahold of you if needed, but requiring a real name is kinda dangerous, especially since some think nothing of it.

Re: Getting Real: Blizzard's Real ID

The system is designed for people you can punch if they screw you over.

By that, I mean you should only give out your Real ID to those who you know in real-life. Offline friends, workmates and colleagues, family members, etc. Some people (like myself) may give these to people they "trust" online, some might want to have their guild leaders Real ID for contact purposes if something comes up and they can't be online, etc.

To put it simply though: The people I'll be giving my Real ID are already on my Facebook. I won't give it to everyone in my guild, but those who get the ID will already know my name and e-mail address so it won't actually matter much, in the long run.

-- Randi Tastix

Re: Getting Real: Blizzard's Real ID

This is just like the Sony Station Launcher except that you have to add another piece to get the "all games and characters in said games" function. With the launcher, all you have to do is add someone as a friend and it will show when any of their characters in any SOE game is online. It supports chat (both text and voice) no matter what the game. I could be playing SWG (ha ha) and be talking to my guild members in EQ2.

That said, I do like the extra step before you can see all of a person's characters. A part of me just wishes that it didn't go by real names... there is this nagging part of my brain that reminds me that sharing personal information willy nilly on the 'net is not such a great idea. You can argue night and day that it is geared for "real life" friends, but you know that people (kids?!) will use it with people they have never met.

Re: Getting Real: Blizzard's Real ID

I fail to see why anyone would make a big deal about this.

I've got alot of IRL friends that I'd love to be able to talk to while online.  This system is NOT designed for people who you've never seen face to face, for these people use the ingame friends features that already exist.

Re: Getting Real: Blizzard's Real ID

The problem is that limiting cross-realm and cross-game chat to "real life friends only" is arbitrary and pointless. I've yet to find anyone that can give me a good reason for the system to require you to display your real name that didn't boil down to "because Blizzard said so." That includes your post, by the way. The system isn't designed for people you've never seen face to face. Why? "Because Blizzard said so." They could have easily designed it to use handles or even pick a "main" character/SC2 account to show as your name, with an optional function to go by your real name for people you know IRL. Real names are in no way vital to the way the system operates.

On top of that, the "friends of friends" feature goes completely against that stated intention, and can't be opted out of short of not using Real ID at all. To borrow a phrase someone else used to describe the problem, friendship is not transitive. I KNOW who I want to add to my Real ID contacts. If I don't add some one, I'm not adding them for a reason, most likely because they aren't my friends. So "friends of friends" is literally useless to me except that it takes control of who sees my information out of my hands and puts it in the hands of my friends, who may not be as careful about who they add as I am.
---
I'm not under the affluence of incohol as some thinkle peep I am. I'm not half as thunk as you might drink. I fool so feelish I don't know who is me, and the drunker I stand here, the longer I get.


---
I'm not under the affluence of incohol as some thinkle peep I am. I'm not half as thunk as you might drink. I fool so feelish I don't know who is me, and the drunker I stand here, the longer I get.

Re: Getting Real: Blizzard's Real ID

Why market this as based around your IRL identity?  Why not just make this an optional feature of your Battle.net friends list or something?  Oh well, that's kinda cool.  It's basically like the Steam friends list.

Re: Getting Real: Blizzard's Real ID

Redundant much?


I have a dream, break the chains of copy right oppression! http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/2010/05/21/cigital-disobedience/


Copyright infringement is nothing more than civil disobedience to a bad set of laws. Let's renegotiate them.

---

Patreon

Deviantart

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
MattsworknameWilson: how? Im still waiting for my upgrade notice07/29/2015 - 3:44am
Matthew WilsonI updated to a clean instill of windows 10.07/29/2015 - 2:36am
Mattsworknameargue that it's wrong, but then please admit it's wrong on ALL Fronts07/29/2015 - 2:06am
MattsworknameTechnoGeek: It's actually NOT, but it is a method used all across the specturm. See Rush limbaugh, MSNBC, Shawn hannity, etc etc, how many compagns have been brought up to try and shut them down by going after there advertisers. It's fine if you wanna07/29/2015 - 2:05am
Mattsworknamediscussed, while not what I liked and not the methods I wanted to see used, were , in a sense, the effort of thsoe game consuming masses to hold what they felt was supposed to be there press accountable for what many of them felt was Betrayal07/29/2015 - 2:03am
MattsworknameAs we say, the gamers are dead article set of a firestorm among the game consuming populace, who, ideally, were the intended audiance for sites like Kotaku, Polygon, Et all. As such, the turn about on them and the attacking of them, via the metods07/29/2015 - 2:03am
MattsworknameAndrew: Thats kind fo the issue at hand, Accountable is a matter of context. For a media group, it means accountable to its reader. to a goverment, to it's voters and tax payer, to a company, to it's share holders.07/29/2015 - 2:02am
Andrew EisenAnd again, you keep saying "accountable." What exactly does that mean? How is Gamasutra not accounting for the editorial it published?07/28/2015 - 11:47pm
Andrew EisenMatt - I disagree with your 9:12 and 9:16 comment. There are myriad ways to address content you don't like. And they're far easier to execute in the online space.07/28/2015 - 11:47pm
Andrew EisenMatt - Banning in the legal sense? Not that I'm aware but there have certainly been groups of gamers who have worked towards getting content they don't like removed.07/28/2015 - 11:45pm
DanJAlexander's editorial was and continues to be grossly misrepresented by her opponents. And if you don't like a site, you stop reading it - same as not watching a tv show. They get your first click, but not your second.07/28/2015 - 11:40pm
TechnogeekYes, because actively trying to convince advertisers to influence the editorial content of media is a perfectly acceptable thing to do, especially for a movement that's ostensibly about journalistic ethics.07/28/2015 - 11:02pm
Mattsworknameanother07/28/2015 - 9:16pm
Mattsworknameyou HAVE TO click on it. So they get the click revenue weather you like what it says or not. as such, the targeting of advertisers most likely seemed like a good course of action to those who wanted to hold those media groups accountable for one reason07/28/2015 - 9:16pm
MattsworknameBut, when you look at online media, it's completely different, with far more options, but far few ways to address issues that the consumers may have. In tv, you don't like what they show, you don't watch. But in order to see if you like something online07/28/2015 - 9:12pm
MattsworknameIn tv, and radio, ratings are how it works. your ratings determine how well you do and how much money you an charge.07/28/2015 - 9:02pm
Mattsworknameexpect to do so without someone wanting to hold you to task for it07/28/2015 - 9:00pm
MattsworknameMecha: I don't think anyone was asking for Editoral changes, what they wanted was to show those media groups that if they were gonna bash there own audiance, the audiance was not gonna take it sitting down. you can write what you want, but you can't07/28/2015 - 8:56pm
MattsworknameAndrew, Im asking as a practical question, Have gamers, as a group, ever asked for a game, or other item, to be banned. Im trying to see if theres any cases anyone else remembers cause I cant find or remember any.07/28/2015 - 8:55pm
Andrew EisenAs mentioned, Gamasutra isn't a gaming site, it's a game industry site. I don't feel it's changed its focus at all. Also, I don't get the sense that the majority of the people who took issue with that one opinion piece were regular readers anyway.07/28/2015 - 8:43pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician